Smaller aircraft for the most part. Airlines have moved away from the hub and spoke architecture which is why planes like the 747 and A380 have been falling out of favor. People prefer direct flights in a 737 or A380 over having a layover but flying in something larger.

Also, the extended twinjets like the 777-9 are going to fit nearly as many people and have lower operating costs than the quadjets like the 747. ETOPS is definitely a factor in the decline of the 747.

I've never had the opportunity to fly on one, but my old man used to fly a lot for business back in the 70s. This was back when some of the airlines used the upper deck area as a lounge. As an adult crammed into 737s and A320s the idea of having a walk around lounge on board seems completely foreign, particularly on domestic flights.

"If this post has you hankering to spend some time airborne in a jumbo, fret not; although no US passenger carriers still operate the big bird, several hundred remain in service with other airlines, most notably British Airways and Lufthansa. And if you happen to be an oligarch or Saudi prince, Boeing will happily build you your own 747-8—but don't expect it to be cheap!"

I've never flown in one, either. I've always wondered what that upper deck lounge is like. I appreciate the photos of the private versions...but curious what it's like in a standard commercial 747.

It really depends on the carrier. On one BA 747 (LHR>JFK, 1997) the upper deck was just more economy seats. On the current ones, it's business class, with first being in the nose. AFAIK no one actually wastes that space as a lounge anymore, since they can get paying passengers in there instead.

I've never flown in one, either. I've always wondered what that upper deck lounge is like. I appreciate the photos of the private versions...but curious what it's like in a standard commercial 747.

It really depends on the carrier. On one BA 747 (LHR>JFK, 1997) the upper deck was just more economy seats. On the current ones, it's business class, with first being in the nose. AFAIK no one actually wastes that space as a lounge anymore, since they can get paying passengers in there instead.

In the glamorous old days they had a lounge up there with a piano bar.

My first flight was on a 747, so I'll always have a soft spot for it. Never got to sit on the upper deck though.

I have had the pleasure of being in the upper deck for very long flights (SFO to Hong Kong) and it was by far the best flying experience I have had (I fly more that 120K per year - so seen a few planes in my day)

Interestingly, all the air crew I've spoken to vastly prefer the 747 to the 777 and A380—apparently the Jumbo is a lot more spacious in the bits us self-loading cargo don't get to see. The BA crew this summer said they'd be sad to see it go.

I remember the first time I saw a 747. I used to watch the planes at LaGuardia from my apartment building roof top, where each apartment had a television antenna. At first, it just looked like any other jet taking off, but it was so large that it seemed to be closer. It was all out of proportion. It took some getting used to.

I had many happy voyages on 747s, but I won't miss them. I really like the 777 which seems to have replaced them on the routes I tend to fly.

Smaller aircraft for the most part. Airlines have moved away from the hub and spoke architecture which is why planes like the 747 and A380 have been falling out of favor. People prefer direct flights in a 737 or A380 over having a layover but flying in something larger.

Also, the extended twinjets like the 777-9 are going to fit nearly as many people and have lower operating costs than the quadjets like the 747. ETOPS is definitely a factor in the decline of the 747.

ETOPS absolutely. Once twin engine jets achieved the ETOPS certifications necessary to do pond-crossing the 4-engine jets like the A380 and 747 were doomed, and they were additionally doomed by the fuel price increases of the 2000's and new aircraft designs that were aggressively focused on wide body, low drag, high fuel efficiency planes and engines.

As to the reason why the price of air travel declined so dramatically in the 60's, it was largely due to the invention of the high-bypass turbofans Boeing built for the C-5 Galaxy. The TF39 was developed into the CF6 family of turbofans that powered the first 747's. The 747 was was sort of the confluence of a bunch of different technologies that helped make low cost, long-distance air travel a reality.

My most memorable flight ever was on a 747 when I was maybe 10 or 12. We flew down to Disney World and managed to get upgraded to first class, and I remember watching the in flight movie on a big projector screen (don't remember what the movie was though).

Maybe one day I'll actually be able to afford to fly first class on one of the fancy new planes, but that's unlikely for now.

The PHX-LHR flight (operated by British Airways) is terrible. Yeah it's a 747, but the thing is ancient and I'd much rather be on a 777 or some other modern aircraft. I fly that route pretty much every year and I can't wait for them to replace it.

Interestingly, all the air crew I've spoken to vastly prefer the 747 to the 777 and A380—apparently the Jumbo is a lot more spacious in the bits us self-loading cargo don't get to see. The BA crew this summer said they'd be sad to see it go.

Makes total sense in today’s race to the bottom airline climate. Of course manufacturers listen to their clients call for planes that can carry more passengers cheaper. One way to do that is of course to reduce crew space and put in a few extra paying seats instead. Even if your crew gets more annoyed/tired in the process...

Typo in the first paragraph: "Delta's last scheduled passenger service with the jumbo was actually late in January, at which point it conducted a farewell tour and then some charter flights."

I think this should be December, as the caption in the first picture states:"It went on a tour at the end of December, and on Wednesday made its final flight to a boneyard in Arizona."

Yep, saw that and fixed it.

Thanks for the article, I really loved the 747s.

I might add that the 12th picture in the 2nd set reads a bit off. Granted, I'm not an english major so I may be in error.

Quote:

Four people were lightly injured when the Boeing 747 slid off the runway at take off and split in half at 11.30 GMT.

Shouldn't that be slightly injured? It kind of remindes me of the old Python skit:

Quote:

Oh, we use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in the finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and sealed in a succulent, Swiss, quintuple-smooth, treble-milk chocolate envelope, and lovingly frosted with glucose.

I remember the first time I saw a 747. I used to watch the planes at LaGuardia from my apartment building roof top, where each apartment had a television antenna. At first, it just looked like any other jet taking off, but it was so large that it seemed to be closer. It was all out of proportion. It took some getting used to.

I had many happy voyages on 747s, but I won't miss them. I really like the 777 which seems to have replaced them on the routes I tend to fly.

Sorry to disappoint you, but LGA could never support 747. Maybe L1011 or dc10.